Originally Posted by midwinter
There was an allegation that McCain had had an affair. Then McCain got asked about it, and he said "Nope. I didn't." And then the press said "Well, it's McCain! He's a straight talker! Let's not waste time investigating anything. Hey, are those cheetoes?"
There wasn't even a process story about the rumor. It just never came up again.
I don't call it coming up eight years later as never coming up again. Call me crazy that way.
Originally Posted by groverat
I am talking about McCain's history of the typical corruption found in career Senators. Not only is he one of the Keating Five
, but the NYTimes piece you keep referencing is actually about how influenced he was by a lobbyist; the sex side was just a subtext that has been pounded by the right-wing in an attempt to hide the real story regarding Iseman, which is McCain's propensity to cater to big industry lobbyists despite his false pretense of eschewing them.
This is a very long-winded way of justifying the fact that you have alleged (again) things that are not true. McCain was never found guilty of a change and was cleared. The very link you posted notes that. I get that you want to buy the pretense of the NY Times for bringing up an 8 year old allegation substantiated by anonymous sources to revisit 20 year old allegations that ended in McCain being cleared. You buy the spin. For myself and everyone else that condemned the Times article it stinks of the same type of bullshit that has dropped the stock price of the Times into the toilet, shrinks the circulation and leads to yet another round of layoffs.
People dont buy the news from an organization that doesn't report it.
Who said anything illegal happened? ("Well it isn't illegal!" is a logically weak argument when the discussion is about ethical credibility.)
I forgot. You were talking about that definition of "typically corrupt" that involves doing nothing wrong and nothing illegal.
The NYT articledoesn't focus on the potential romance angle. It's in there, but out of four pages there are only a few sentences that mention the suspicion of a romantic relationship, and the sources of that suspicion are McCain aides and advisors.
It doesn't focus on any angle. It is a bunch of baseless charges from all manner of directions and all manner of time frames all dumped into a bullshit article. The reasoning doesn't even make sense. Being self-confident means you might break the law or cheat or not notice the imagery that would suggest these things because... hey look a pretty bird! It doesn't name a single source.
It is nonsense. It is crap. Thanks for tossing it out there so we can all try to forget what a shit John Edwards is and how he was never nothing even when he was something,
This does bring up an interesting and funny twist in my mind though. How terrified is anyone of actually being asked to be the VP? I mean the last two have been Lieberman and Edwards. It appears to be a curse of some sort. Even Gore who made out better than most would still be cursed based off how 2000 went.
It's a perfectly solid piece of journalism and isn't anything at all like a tawdry sex-focused piece as you seem desperate to characterize it as.
It is hilarious and desperate to characterize a piece that doesn't list a single source who is on record about their "concerns" as a solid piece.
When the hell did concerns become news anyway? Editorial fodder sure, but it isn't news.
Evidence of sexual involvement? That's an absurdly high bar to climb.
Oh I forgot. The Times can put a team of reporters to work for weeks to air out "concerns" but can't lift a finger to investigate an affair that a candidate in the primary process lied about.
Oh but those.... concerns... they could be really important concerns even though they are only about "typical corruption found in career Senators" so they are.... typical concerns and thus are newsworthy. They aren't illegal. There aren't charges. There isn't a relationship. There are... concerns.
Yep... sounds like a solid piece.
The story is solid, it's a good insight into McCain's false pretense of incorruptibility.
Ahahahahahahahaha.... it is a false show of incorruptibility and we can show this by airing concerns from anonymous sources for our solid story.
He was? Where do you get this information?
It's out there. He was a former candidate, Senator and the last VP nominee. He also endorsed Obama when he jumped out.john edwards convention
I can see the response now.
"Those articles are all childish and idiotic!"